Unfortunate that property dispute pending for 30 years: Delhi High Court
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has termed it “very unfortunate” that an appeal regarding a property dispute was pending before it for over 30 years and no satisfactory solution was found despite the fact that 75 judges have heard the matter.
Justice V K Shali observed that in Delhi, prices of land have risen beyond imagination and whenever there is a property dispute, the effort of one party is to bring the other to its knees by tiring out its resources and patience.
The court said, “It is really very unfortunate that this appeal has remained pending on the board of this court for almost 30 years and has to pass through hands of as many as 75 Judges or so but still the solution to the problem of dividing the property (which happens to be the piece of land measuring approximately 7794.63 square yards along with superstructure) could not be found out to the satisfaction of all parties.”
“In city of Delhi, the prices of land have risen beyond imagination. As a matter of fact, the prices have become prohibitive to own house, plot or flat,” it said.
The court further noted, “As a necessary consequence of this, wherever there is a dispute between the co-sharers of a property, effort of one party is to bring the other party to its knees by tiring out its resources and patience so that it becomes almost a distress sale by such a party to the other co-sharer.”
The court’s observation came on an appeal filed by a man, who has passed away, against the judgement and decree passed by the trial court on July 1985 in a suit for partition of a plot measuring 7794.63 square yards in Mayapuri here.
On the basis of submissions of the parties, a preliminary decree was passed by the trial court and later on a judgement was passed on the suit.
The man had moved the high court challenging the judgement and decree passed in July 1985 by the trial court by virtue of which certain specified portions which were earmarked as super structures was to be shared amongst the parties while the land was stated to be common.
The high court, after hearing the submissions, said that it was left with no other alternative but to appoint a local commissioner for inviting bids for sale of the suit property.
“Having regard to the aforesaid facts, I feel that a senior advocate deserves to be appointed as court commissioner for the purpose of conducting an open, transparent and a fair sale of the suit property by inviting bids,” the court said and fixed the matter for further directions on September 29.